SNAP Failure The Food Stamp Program Needs Reform

Page created by Virginia Chang
 
CONTINUE READING
No. 738                                       October 16, 2013

                                         SNAP Failure
                   The Food Stamp Program Needs Reform
                                           by Michael Tanner

                                      Executive Summary

         The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Pro-       liberate policy choices by both federal and state
     gram (SNAP), the food assistance program for-        governments, which loosened eligibility stan-
     merly known as food stamps, has become Amer-         dards and actively sought new participants. At
     ica’s fastest growing social welfare program. As     the same time, evidence that the expansion of
     recently as 2000, just 17 million Americans par-     SNAP has significantly reduced hunger or im-
     ticipated in the program at a cost of less than      proved nutrition among low-income Americans
     $18 billion. Today, roughly 48 million Ameri-        is scant at best.
     cans receive SNAP benefits, costing taxpayers            SNAP is a deeply troubled program. It has
     more than $78 billion per year. Yet according        high administrative costs and significant lev-
     to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),        els of fraud and abuse. The program’s work re-
     nearly 18 million American households remain         quirements are weak and frequently evaded at
     “food insecure.”                                     the state level. The program increasingly breeds
         This many households living in hunger has        greater dependence on government. It has little
     raised significant questions about whether the       “bang for the buck.”
     growth of SNAP has been justified and whether            The time has come to reform the food stamp
     it successfully addresses hunger in America.         program by reducing its spending and enroll-
         The evidence suggests that much of the in-       ment and, ultimately, by returning responsibil-
     crease was due not to the economy but to de-         ity for its operation to the states.

      Michael Tanner is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of The Poverty of Welfare: Helping
     Others in Civil Society (2003).
SNAP has been                  Introduction                             administration in 2000 to 26 million people
       one of this                                                        by 2006. The 2008 farm bill—the Food, Con-
                        This country’s first food stamp program           servation, and Energy Act of 2008—contin-
 country’s fastest   was temporary, running from 1939 to 1943.            ued this trend. It simplified the application
   growing social    It allowed low-income Americans to pur-              process further and made it easier still for
                     chase food that the USDA considered sur-             people to enroll, indexed the asset limits to
welfare programs     plus. In some ways, it was as much a farm            inflation, and changed the name from food
  in recent years.   price support program as an anti-poverty             stamps to the Supplemental Nutrition As-
                     one. At its peak, 4 million Americans partici-       sistance Program. President Obama’s 2009
                     pated at a cost to the government of $262            stimulus bill further expanded the program,
                     million.1 The program was phased out as              increasing benefits by 13.6 percent and sus-
                     food surpluses were depleted, and concerns           pending the time limits for SNAP benefits
                     were raised about the lack of congressional          for Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents
                     authorization and about highly publicized            (ABAWDs). As a result, roughly 48 million
                     instances of fraud and abuse.                        Americans receive SNAP benefits today,
                        In the years following, several attempts          thereby costing taxpayers more than $78 bil-
                     were made to re-establish the program, but           lion per year.3
                     it wasn’t until 1959 that Congress passed                This rapid growth has forced a reassess-
                     legislation authorizing the USDA to again            ment of the program. This year, for the
                     issue food stamps to low-income Americans.           first time since the program began, the
                     Even then, the Eisenhower administration             House of Representatives voted to consider
                     ultimately decided not to go forward with            food stamps separately from the farm bill,
                     implementation. The Kennedy administra-              thereby breaking up the political coalition
                     tion did implement several food stamp pi-            that had traditionally backed the program.4
                     lot programs, but it wasn’t until Congress           Congress is also expected to consider cuts in
                     passed the Food Stamp Act of 1964 at the             program spending as well as other reforms
                     urging of President Lyndon B. Johnson that           to the program.
                     the modern food stamp program began.                     Therefore, it is important to consider
                        Food stamps were always seen as fulfill-          the causes of the recent growth in SNAP, to
                     ing two separate goals—“improved levels of           consider whether that growth has been justi-
                     nutrition” and “strengthening the agricul-           fied, and, perhaps more important, to con-
                     tural economy.”2 The food stamp program              sider whether the program has succeeded in
                     has been this two-pronged mission that has           addressing hunger in America.
                     ensured bipartisan support over the years,
                     with traditional liberal advocates for the
                     poor joined by farm state conservatives in                   Explosive Growth
                     backing the program.
                        However, beginning under President                   As noted, SNAP has been one of this
                     George W. Bush, and even more rapidly un-            country’s fastest growing social welfare
                     der President Barack Obama, the number of            programs in recent years, and it is now the
                     Americans receiving food stamps and the as-          nation’s second most costly means-tested
                     sociated cost of the program have risen dra-         program behind Medicaid. Whereas the
                     matically. For example, the 2002 farm bill—          program has grown steadily since its incep-
                     the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act           tion, rapid expansion started under Presi-
                     of 2002—expanded eligibility to noncitizens,         dent Bush and then escalated even more
                     increased benefits for large families, and           rapidly under President Obama (Figure 1).
                     made it easier for people to claim benefits.         Since 2000, spending on SNAP increased
                     As a result, participation increased from 17         from just $17 billion per year to more than
                     million Americans at the start of the Bush           $78 billion in 2012, a greater than fourfold

                                                                      2
Figure 1
Cost and Enrollment Growth 2001–13

                          Cost, Billions of Dollars                 Participation, Millions
    90

    80

    70

    60

    50

    40

    30

    20

    10

     0
      2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs,”
Food and Nutrition Services, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm.

increase. The increased spending was driven               rollment in food stamps increased by only
both by an increase in the number of re-                  635,000, and spending rose by just $124
cipients (a surge from 17 million in 2000 to              million (in constant 2012 dollars). During
more than 48 million today) and an average                the 1990–92 recession and jobless recovery,
benefit per person that has almost doubled.               enrollment increased by 5.2 million, and
Today, nearly one out of every six Americans              spending rose by $9.1 billion. During the
receives SNAP.                                            most recent recession (over a comparable
    SNAP is jointly administered by federal               three-year period), enrollment increased by
and state governments, thereby giving states              12 million people, while spending increased
more leeway to set eligibility rules than with            by $30 billion.6 The Congressional Budget
some other welfare programs. As a result,                 Office (CBO) estimates that about 35 per-
the program’s growth has varied significant-              cent of the program’s growth from 2007 to
ly from one state to another. For example,                2011 was caused by non-economic factors.
since 2008, the number of people receiving                This CBO estimate suggests that much of
SNAP benefits has doubled or more in Flori-               the increase was due to deliberate policy
da, Idaho, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Utah.5               choices.7
    Of course, some of this increase could                   In addition, if one looks at food stamp          The program’s
be considered countercyclical because wel-                receipt rates state by state, one finds little
fare programs automatically expand during                 correlation between unemployment rates or           growth
economic downturns, such as in the recent                 poverty rates and the number of people on           has varied
recession. However, increases in both par-                food stamps. Thus, poor states such as Loui-        significant­ly
ticipation and spending were bigger during                siana and Mississippi have high food stamp
this recession than in previous ones. For                 participation (above 20 percent), but so does       from one state to
example, during the 1980–82 recession, en-                Oregon, where more than 21 percent of the           another.

                                                      3
SNAP’s eligibility    population receives food stamps in a state                                                      rest of the decade and beyond (Figure 3). In-
   require­ments      with an unemployment rate of just 8 per-                                                        deed, in 2023, SNAP will still cost taxpayers
                      cent and an average wage above the national                                                     at least $73.2 billion, more than double the
       have been      average.8 Tennessee has very high participa-                                                    total cost in 2007 and more than four times
    significantly     tion, but Alabama, Georgia, and Kentucky,                                                       the cost of the program in 2000.11
                      with similar demographics, do not. Vermont
         relaxed.     has high participation; New Hampshire has                                                       Three Factors of Expansion
                      much lower participation.9                                                                          Aside from the recession, three factors
                         Moreover, both enrollment and costs are                                                      have driven the expansion of SNAP.
                      expected to remain high for the next several                                                        Relaxed Eligibility. First, and perhaps
                      years, despite the economic recovery and de-                                                    most important, SNAP’s eligibility require-
                      clines in unemployment. As Figure 2 shows,                                                      ments have been significantly relaxed. SNAP
                      participation is expected to peak in 2013                                                       is no longer a program targeted at the poor-
                      at 47.7 million recipients, before starting                                                     est Americans who may need some tem-
                      to decline slightly. However, participation                                                     porary help, but it has become part of an
                      will remain above 40 million until 2019 and                                                     ever-growing permanent welfare state. To-
                      would still be more than 34 million in 2023,                                                    day, nearly 17 percent of SNAP households
                      double the number of recipients in 2000.10                                                      have incomes above the poverty line.12 And
                      Food stamp participation at levels far in ex-                                                   almost 4.5 million recipients are ABAWDs, a
                      cess of historical averages will become the                                                     group that accounts for more than 10 per-
                      new normal.                                                                                     cent of the beneficiaries.13
                         Program costs will also peak in 2013, at                                                         Low-income families can become eligi-
                      $83 billion, before leveling off. However,                                                      ble for SNAP in several ways. For instance,
                      SNAP will remain one of the most expen-                                                         households can qualify for SNAP benefits
                      sive social welfare programs throughout the                                                     if they meet the program’s income and as-

                      Figure 2
                      Projected Average Monthly SNAP Participation 2000–23

                                60

                                50

                                40
                     Millions

                                30

                                20

                                10

                                 0
                                     2000
                                            2001
                                                   2002
                                                          2003
                                                                 2004
                                                                        2005
                                                                               2006
                                                                                      2007
                                                                                             2008
                                                                                                    2009
                                                                                                           2010
                                                                                                                  2011
                                                                                                                         2012
                                                                                                                                2013
                                                                                                                                       2014
                                                                                                                                              2015
                                                                                                                                                     2016
                                                                                                                                                            2017
                                                                                                                                                                   2018
                                                                                                                                                                          2019
                                                                                                                                                                                 2020
                                                                                                                                                                                        2021
                                                                                                                                                                                               2022
                                                                                                                                                                                                      2023

                      Source: Congressional Budget Office, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: May 2013 Baseline,” http://
                      www.cbo.gov/publication/44211.

                                                                                                                  4
Figure 3
  SNAP Costs 2000–23
               90

               80

               70

               60
Billions ($)

               50

               40

               30

               20

               10

                0
                    2000
                           2001
                                  2002
                                         2003
                                                2004
                                                       2005
                                                              2006
                                                                     2007
                                                                            2008
                                                                                   2009
                                                                                          2010
                                                                                                 2011
                                                                                                        2012
                                                                                                               2013
                                                                                                                      2014
                                                                                                                             2015
                                                                                                                                    2016
                                                                                                                                           2017
                                                                                                                                                  2018
                                                                                                                                                         2019
                                                                                                                                                                2020
                                                                                                                                                                       2021
                                                                                                                                                                              2022
                                                                                                                                                                                     2023
  Source: Congressional Budget Office, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program: May 2013 Baseline,” http://
  www.cbo.gov/publication/44211.

  set test: a gross income below 130 percent                                                            a brochure or referral to an “800” number
  of the poverty level and a net income below                                                           telephone hotline.14
  100 percent of poverty, as well as less than                                                             Because the cash assistance component of
  $2,000 in assets (although there are some ex-                                                         TANF is more tightly targeted than its other
  emptions, such as the value of houses, a car,                                                         benefits, expanding categorical eligibility for
  and retirement accounts). Households with                                                             SNAP to include these other components
  a person over age 60 or who is disabled have                                                          means that some households with higher
  a higher asset threshold.                                                                             income can qualify for benefits.15 Some of
      However, more often participants become                                                           this shift to more people qualifiying through
  eligible for SNAP because they are also eligi-                                                        broad categorical eligibility is due to the ef-
  ble for other government welfare programs.                                                            fectiveness of the TANF reforms in reducing
  Nearly two-thirds of households receiving                                                             welfare caseloads; because significantly fewer
  SNAP qualify through this type of categori-                                                           people receive cash assistance from TANF
  cal eligibility and were not subject to asset                                                         compared to its peak years, then naturally
  tests or certain income tests (although they                                                          fewer people qualify for SNAP through the
  remain subject to the net income test).                                                               receipt of cash assistance. But much of the
      Initially, categorical eligibility was limited                                                    shift is due to the spread of broad-based
  to those receiving TANF (then called Aid to                                                           categorical eligibility throughout the states
  Families with Dependent Children, but now                                                             in recent years. The number of states using                                         USDA has
  changed to Temporary Assistance for Needy                                                             the broad categorical eligibility policies has                                      been actively
  Families). However, the 1996 welfare reform                                                           expanded rapidly in the wake of the reces-
  allowed states to expand the definition of                                                            sion, increasing from 29 states in fiscal year                                      encouraging
  TANF benefit far beyond the actual cash                                                               (FY) 2009 to 39 to 42 states by the end of                                          states to expand
  payment to include things like childcare and                                                          FY2011.16
  transportation, or even in some cases allow                                                              In recent years, USDA has been actively
                                                                                                                                                                                            categorical
  enrollment from something as minimal as                                                               encouraging states to expand categorical eli-                                       eligibility.

                                                                                                    5
The federal     gibility. As the Congressional Research Ser-              ity has more than tripled since 2007, and
government has      vice reported:                                            these households now account for almost
                                                                              two-thirds of SNAP households. Whereas
 also embarked               The USDA’s Food and Nutrition                    many of these would qualify under the old
   on a massive              Service has taken an official stance             requirements as well, there is the danger
                             encouraging states to use so-called              that as the economy eventually improves
       outreach              “categorical eligibility” authority to           and some of these households see their in-
       program               expand eligibility to significant num-           come and assets increase, they will contin-
       designed              bers of households by (1) increasing or          ue to improperly receive benefits for some
                             completely lifting limits on assets that         months because they are subject to relaxed
     to increase             eligible households may have and (2)             tests. Concern exists that states will con-
  participation.             raising dollar limits on households’             tinue to shift toward categorical eligibility
                             gross monthly income.17                          even as the economy improves because it
                                                                              potentially saves them some administrative
                       The effect of this explicit encouragement              costs in oversight. Meanwhile, states bear
                    can be seen in the drastic increase in the                none of the costs of increased benefit pay-
                    proportion of SNAP households qualifying                  ments. The spread of broad-based categori-
                    through categorical eligibility in just the past          cal eligibility has likely increased program
                    few years.                                                costs and could contribute to keeping them
                       As can be seen, the share of households                higher than they otherwise would be in the
                    qualifying through categorical eligibil-                  coming years.

                    Figure 4
                    Increase in Proportion of SNAP Households Qualifying Through Broad-Based and
                    “Other” Categorical Eligibility
                             70                                                                                65.8

                             60

                             50

                             40
                   Percent

                             30

                                        18.8
                             20

                             10

                              0
                                       2007             2008             2009               2010              2011

                    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
                    Households: Fiscal Year 2011,” Report No. SNAP-12-CHAR, Food and Nutrition Service, November 2012.
                    Note: This figure displays the percentage of all recipients who qualify through categorical eligibility other
                    than the more traditional, narrowly defined mechanism of qualifying through receipt cash assistance through
                    Supplemental Security Income or TANF. This assistance includes Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility, receipt of
                    noncash TANF benefits or services, and transportation subsidies, among others.

                                                                          6
Figure 5
     Method of Qualification for SNAP, 2011
                                  70

                                  60
Percentage of SNAP Participants

                                  50

                                  40

                                  30

                                  20

                                  10

                                   0
                                       Broad-Based Categorical   Cash Assistance         Income and Asset Tests
                                              Eligibility

     Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
     Households: Fiscal Year 2011,” Report No. SNAP-12-CHAR, Food and Nutrition Service, November 2012.

           In 2011, only a little more than one in                        even hired so-called food stamp recruiters
       ten households still qualified through the                         with monthly quotas of recipients to sign.
       traditional income and asset tests. Now al-                        For example, Florida SNAP recruiters have
       most two-thirds of SNAP households qual-                           a quota of 150 new participants per month,
       ify through expanded categorical eligibility,                      which may help account for that state’s tre-
       and a further quarter qualify through tra-                         mendous growth in food stamp receipt.21
       ditional categorical eligibility.18 Although                          Rhode Island, another state that has seen
       many of these households would still qual-                         SNAP receipt double over the past five years,
       ify if they were subject to the traditional                        hosts SNAP-themed bingo games for the
       income and asset tests, this qualification is                      elderly. Alabama hands out fliers that read:
       not uniformly the case.                                            “Be a patriot. Bring your food stamp money
           Increased Participation from Outreach.                         home.” A USDA brochure advises its field
       Second, at the same time that eligibility for                      offices to
       SNAP has been broadened, the federal gov-
       ernment has also embarked on a massive                                Throw a Great Party. Host social events      Federal and state
       outreach program designed to increase par-                            where people mix and mingle. Make it         governments
       ticipation by those who are eligible. As the                          fun by having activities, games, food
       CBO found in a 2013 report, between 2002                              and entertainment, and provide infor-        now spend
       and 2007, “greater participation mainly re-                           mation about SNAP. Putting SNAP              more than
       sulted from outreach initiatives, including                           information in a game format like
       efforts to increase awareness of SNAP and                             BINGO, crossword puzzles . . . is fun
                                                                                                                          $41.3 million
       streamline the application process.”19                                and helps get your message across in a       annually on
           Federal and state governments now spend                           memorable way.22                             advertising and
       more than $41.3 million annually on adver-
       tising and outreach for food stamps, a six-                           The USDA also advertised food stamps         outreach for food
       fold increase since 2000.20 Some states have                       in a 10-part serialized Spanish language ra-    stamps.

                                                                      7
Work     dio novella, until public outcry forced them          cipients with incomes above the poverty line
participation    to cancel the program.23 And, in one noto-            have risen from 12 percent of SNAP house-
                 rious incident, an official in Ashe County,           holds to 16.7 percent, a nearly 40 percent in-
    by SNAP      SC, received an award for developing a strat-         crease in just 4 years.
   recipients    egy to counteract what they described as                  The current SNAP program does have
                 “mountain pride” and appealing to “those              work requirements that, at first glance, seem
remains low.     who wished not to rely on others.”24                  comparable to the TANF work requirements
                     This outreach has resulted in a signifi-          that were so successful in helping beneficia-
                 cant increase in participation by those eligi-        ries transition into the labor market and re-
                 ble for SNAP. In 2010, 75 percent of people           duce TANF caseloads. However, loopholes
                 estimated to be eligible for SNAP received            and selective enforcement have significantly
                 benefits, a substantial increase from 66 per-         limited their effectiveness in helping SNAP
                 cent in 2008.25 Significantly, increased par-         beneficiaries find jobs and transition out of
                 ticipation has taken place primarily among            the program.
                 higher income households; lower income                    On paper, the program currently requires
                 households have always had high participa-            all nondisabled and nonelderly recipients
                 tion rates.                                           to register for the SNAP Employment and
                     With categorical eligibility making it eas-       Training Program, to accept a job if offered,
                 ier for participants to avoid the program’s           to search for work, or to meet other work re-
                 strict income limits and higher income eligi-         quirements that states impose. Able-bodied
                 bles increasing their participation, the pro-         adult recipients between the ages of 18 and
                 portion of SNAP households with incomes               50 without children, must work, must par-
                 above the poverty line has risen significant-         ticipate in an employment and training pro-
                 ly. As Figure 6 shows, since 2007, SNAP re-           gram, or must participate in a SNAP “work-

                 Figure 6
                 Percentage of SNAP Households with Gross Income Above 100 Percent Federal
                 Poverty Level
                          18
                                                                                                       16.7
                          16

                          14
                                 12
                          12

                          10
                Percent

                           8

                           6

                           4

                           2

                           0
                                2007              2008              2009              2010             2011
                 Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Characteristics of SNAP Households, 2009–2011,” http://www.
                 fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2011Characteristics.pdf; USDA, “Program
                 Participation Trends 2001–2008,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/ora/menu/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/
                 Trends2001-2008.pdf.

                                                                   8
Figure 7
Map of States with ABAWD Waiver for FY2013

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—Able Bodied
Adults without Dependents Waivers for Fiscal Year 2013,” March 2012.
Note: Able-Bodied Adults without Dependents (ABAWD) waivers are in effect for the shaded states. Kansas,
Oklahoma, and Wisconsin have signaled that they will let the ABAWD waiver expire in FY2014.

fare” program for at least 20 hours per week.          ments were required to participate in SNAP
Otherwise they can collect SNAP benefits               employment and training programs, whereas
for only 3 months in a given 36-month pe-              only 3 percent of this population participat-
riod.26 In addition, recipients cannot quit a          ed voluntarily.29 The low voluntary partici-
job or voluntarily reduce their hours of work          pation could be because SNAP participants
below 30 hours per week. (States can exempt            view the employment and training programs
up to 15 percent of able-bodied recipients             as ineffective, or because they have little in-
from work requirements for hardship or                 centive to find employment given weak work
other reasons without a waiver).27                     requirements.
   Yet actual work participation by SNAP                   The inherent weakness of SNAP work
recipients remains low. In 2011, the most              requirements was briefly made even worse
recent year for which data are available, only         as a result of the 2009 federal stimulus bill,      Recently states
27.7 percent of nonelderly adult participants          which suspended work requirements for
were employed, while another 28.0 percent              ABAWDs for one year. The blanket suspen-
                                                                                                           have begun to
reported that they were looking for work.              sion was not extended in 2010. However,             use a loophole
That means that fully 44 percent were nei-             states with high unemployment rates were            in the law to
ther employed nor actively searching for               still given greater flexibility to loosen work
work. Looking specifically at working age,             requirements. Today, waivers are still in           increase the
childless, able-bodied adults, more than               effect for 44 states and the District of Co-        amount of
half, or 2 million SNAP households, had no             lumbia, covering 92 percent of able-bodied
earned income.28                                       adult recipients without dependents.30
                                                                                                           benefits that
   Similarly, fewer than half of those adults              No accurate data are now available on           a family can
not otherwise exempt from work require-                which states are or are not meeting work re-        receive.

                                                   9
Surprisingly     quirements for SNAP. Indeed, states are not             ing increased SNAP costs is an increase in
     little data   even required to report such information.               the benefits themselves. The 2009 federal
                   However, given how low work participation               stimulus boosted the maximum monthly
   exist about     is for other welfare programs such as TANF,             benefit in 2009 for a family of three from
the program’s      where only 42 percent of adults nationwide              $463 to $526. As a result, CBO “estimated
                   are engaged in even broadly defined work                that 20 percent of the spending growth can
 effectiveness.    activities, there is ample reason for con-              be attributed to the benefit increases in the
                   cern. Moreover, states with some of the low-            ARRA.”32 As Figure 9 shows, the average
                   est TANF work participation rates, such as              benefit per person has almost doubled since
                   Massachusetts, Missouri, and Rhode Island,              2000.
                   are among those with waivers in effect.                    Recently states have begun to use a loop-
                       As Figure 8 shows, both the number of               hole in the law to increase the amount of
                   able-bodied adults without children partici-            benefits that a family can receive. Because
                   pating in SNAP and the share of total par-              SNAP benefits phase out with higher levels
                   ticipants has grown significantly in recent             of income, the lower the countable income
                   years, with a particularly sharp uptick after           of an individual, the higher that person’s
                   work requirements were suspended in the                 benefits will be. If a person or family pays
                   American Recovery and Reinvestment Act                  for utility costs separately from rent, they
                   of 2009. In fact, able-bodied adults without            can deduct both the utility cost and the rent
                   children have been the fastest growing bene-            from their countable income, which will al-
                   ficiary group, more than tripling in the past           low them to receive higher SNAP benefits.
                   four years.31                                           The law currently allows states to assign the
                       Increased Benefits. The third factor driv-          higher utility allowance to anyone who re-

                   Figure 8
                   Increase in ABAWDs 2008–11

                                     Percent of SNAP Participants            Number of SNAP Participants, Millions
                       12

                       10

                        8

                        6

                        4

                        2

                        0
                         2008                          2009                           2010                           2011

                   Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Characteristics of Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
                   Households, Fiscal Years 2008–2011,” Table A.1. Distribution of Participating Households, Individuals, and
                   Benefits by Household Composition, Locality, Countable Income Source, and SNAP Benefit Amount, http://
                   www.fns.usda.gov/ora/MENU/Published/snap/FILES/Participation/2011Characteristics.pdf.

                                                                      10
Figure 9
    Average Benefit per Person 2000–11
                              160

                              140

                              120
Benefit per Person, Dollars

                              100

                               80

                               60

                               40

                               20

                                0
                                 2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005     2006   2007   2008    2009   2010    2011

    Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation and Costs,”
    Food and Nutrition Services, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm.

      ceives aid from the Low Income Energy As-                                 Questionable Bang for
      sistance Program (LIHEAP), even if heating                                      the Buck
      and air conditioning are already included in
      the individual’s rent or shelter deduction.                               Considering SNAP’s growing cost and en-
      In recent years, this deduction that LIHEAP                           rollment, surprisingly little data exist about
      helps more beneficiaries qualify for has be-                          the program’s effectiveness. And many of
      come the most claimed deduction besides                               the studies that do exist date from before the
      the standard one. Almost 72 percent of                                program’s recent expansion.
      households claimed it in 2011.33                                          The USDA, which administers SNAP,
         The federal government pays for both                               claims that the program is one of the federal
      SNAP benefits and LIHEAP, so states have                              government’s most effective for reducing
      an incentive to extend LIHEAP to as many                              poverty. One USDA study found “an aver-
      beneficiaries as possible. These residents can                        age decline of 4.4 percent in the prevalence
      then receive more benefits at no additional                           of poverty due to SNAP benefits, while the
      cost to the states. As such, some states send                         average decline in the depth and severity of
      a minimal amount of LIHEAP benefits,                                  poverty was 10.3 and 13.2 percent, respective-    The literature
      sometimes as low as $1, to SNAP partici-                              ly.”34 A second USDA study found that SNAP        is inconclusive
      pants to allow them to automatically qualify                          reduces food insecurity by 5 to 10 percentage
      for the related allowance and the resulting                           points.35
                                                                                                                              regarding
      higher benefits. The program’s flawed struc-                              These results should not be especially sur-   whether SNAP
      ture creates perverse incentives by which the                         prising. It would be next to impossible for the   alleviates
      states bear no additional costs and actually                          federal government to spend $75 billion an-
      have incentive to inflate the benefits to their                       nually to provide food assistance (counting       hunger and
      residents.                                                            just SNAP benefits) to low-income people          malnutrition.

                                                                       11
There is an   without having some impact on poverty. The                pation and food insecurity is difficult to see.
inherent danger    real question is whether marginal increases                   Of course, Figure 10 does not show wheth-
                   in SNAP expenditures have a substantial                   er the problem of food insecurity might have
  that SNAP can    effect on poverty or nutrition, or whether                been even worse in the absence of SNAP.
make recipients    SNAP provides more benefits than would                    Here, the limited academic research is am-
                   private charitable alternatives.                          biguous. For example, according to the Gov-
   dependent on        Despite the massive increase in SNAP                  ernment Accountability Office (GAO) “the
    government.    spending and participation since 2000, the                literature is inconclusive regarding whether
                   federal government currently classifies 17.9              SNAP alleviates hunger and malnutrition for
                   million American households as “food in-                  low-income households.”38 The GAO found
                   secure,” that is, “uncertain of having, or un-            that participants in SNAP and other federal
                   able to acquire, enough food to meet the                  food programs “tend to be more food inse-
                   needs of all their members because they had               cure compared to others that are eligible for
                   insufficient money or other resources for                 programs but do not participate.”39 However,
                   food” at some point during the year.36 Of                 as the USDA warns, there is bit of a chicken-
                   these, 39 percent, or 6.8 million households              and-egg problem in drawing a causal rela-
                   were considered to have “very low food secu-              tionship between SNAP and food insecurity
                   rity,” where “normal eating patterns of one               because “households that have recently expe-
                   or more household members were disrupted                  rienced unusually high levels of food insecu-
                   and food intake was reduced.”37                           rity” could be more likely to enroll in SNAP.40
                       Indeed, as Figure 10 shows, a direct rela-                The Urban Institute estimates that food
                   tionship between SNAP spending or partici-                stamps have a modest effect on severe food

                   Figure 10
                   Food Insecurity and SNAP since 2000

                      80

                      70

                      60

                      50

                      40

                      30

                      20
                                                                             Food Insecure Individuals, Millions
                      10                                                     Participation, Millions
                                                                             Expenditure, Billions of Dollars
                       0
                        2000     2001    2002     2003     2004    2005       2006    2007    2008    2009    2010     2011

                   Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Food Security in the U.S., Key Statistics and Graphics,” Economic
                   Research Service, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statis
                   tics-graphics.aspx#foodsecure; U.S. Department of Agriculture, “National Level Annual Summary” Food and
                   Nutrition Services, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm.

                                                                        12
insecurity and a larger one on the broader             tive costs expended” and did not provide any
measure of food insecurity.41 However, re-             insight into outcomes.48
search by Huffman and Jensen was unable                   At the very least, therefore, the research
to find any effect, concluding that “[n]ei-            calls into question claims about the pro-
ther participation in the FSP [food stamp              gram’s effectiveness and suggests that addi-
program] nor the size of the FSP benefit re-           tional study should precede any increase in
duced the probability of the household’s be-           spending.
ing food insecure.”42
    Looked at in terms of nutrition and
health, SNAP’s effect is again difficult to                The Dependency Trap
determine. Evidence suggests that SNAP
may indeed make healthy food more avail-                   As with all welfare programs, there is an
able to low-income Americans, but it may               inherent danger that SNAP can make recipi-
not actually increase the consumption of               ents dependent on government. As shown in
nutritional food by recipients. For example,           Figure 11, a surprising proportion of SNAP
a 2008 report by Nancy Cole and Mary Kay               recipients remains on the program for long
Fox for the USDA concluded that for nearly             periods of time, almost 56 percent for lon-
all vitamins, minerals, and macronutrients             ger than five years.49 This fact suggests that   SNAP is an
assessed, the dietary intake among SNAP                SNAP is not being used as a temporary safe-      inefficient,
participants was comparable to that of                 ty net, but rather as a permanent source of      fraud-ridden,
nonparticipants.43 This finding appears to             income.
confirm older research that SNAP partici-                  The limited scholarship available on the     and deeply
pation does “not lead to greater intake of             issue suggests that SNAP does result in some     troubled
food energy or vitamins and minerals over-             level of government dependence. For exam-
all.”44 A more recent review of the literature         ple, a study by scholars at Virginia Polytech-
                                                                                                        program.
by the GAO similarly concluded that “re-               nic and Agricultural University found that
search finds little or no effect on the dietary        “SNAP participation in the previous period
or nutrient intake of individuals.”45 Per-             increases the propensity to participate in the
haps this conclusion is because SNAP sub-              SNAP in the current period by 30 percent.”
sidizes unhealthy food as much as healthy              As a result, they concluded “[a] major policy
foods. For example, SNAP subsidizes “soft              implication of the results is that FSP poli-
drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and            cies aimed at reducing the initial entrance
ice cream.”46                                          into the FSP through changes in benefit
    A study from the Institute of Medicine             levels or certification requirements can have
and the National Research Council also                 long-term benefits in terms of reducing de-
raised questions about food stamp effective-           pendence among low-income households.”
ness, for example, about the program’s slow            Conversely, a study for the Journal of Sociol-
response to changing prices.47                         ogy and Social Welfare agreed that dependency
    Little evidence exists to support claims           did increase in the short term for mothers
that the program provides a stimulus for               with children on SNAP, that is, over the first
the economy as a whole. Indeed, the agricul-           five years, but it concluded that the effect
ture department’s own Inspector General                disappeared over the long term.50
concluded that the department was unable                   The evidence is much stronger that re-
to determine whether the additional dollars            ceipt of food stamps reduces work effort.
in the stimulus were in any way effective in           For example, a study by Hilary Hoynes and
meeting the 2009 Recovery Act’s goals be-              Diane Schanzenbach in the Journal of Pub-
cause three of the four performance mea-               lic Economics found “modest reductions in
sures “reflected outputs, such as the dollar           employment and hours worked after food
amount of benefits issued and administra-              stamp benefits are introduced.”51 This study

                                                  13
Figure 11
                      SNAP Cumulative Exit Rate

                               60

                               50

                               40
                     Percent

                               30

                               20

                               10

                                0
                                    Six Months 1 Year or   2 Years or    3 Years or   4 Years or   5 Years or    Longer
                                      or Less     Less        Less          Less         Less         Less

                      Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Dynamics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation
                      in the Mid-2000s,” Food and Nutrition Service, Table II.17, September 2011.

                      found significant differences by gender, with                unemployment programs pay more,
                      men showing very little change in labor par-                 the sacrifices that jobs require do not
                      ticipation, but a nearly “50 percent reduction               disappear. The commuting hassle is
                      in total hours worked” for women.52 And a                    still there, the possibility for injury on
                      study by Udaya Wagle of Western Michigan                     the job is still there, and jobs still take
                      University confirmed the work disincentive                   time away from family, schooling,
                      effect of food stamps, concluding “that a                    hobbies, and sleep. But the reward to
                      one percent increase in FSP receipts reduces                 working declines, because some of the
                      work hours for families by about one half of                 money earned on the job is now avail-
                      one percent.” Moreover, Wagle found “these                   able even when not working.54
                      are consistent across all families and families
                      with children.”53
                          These findings really should not be a sur-              Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
                      prise. As Casey Mulligan of the University of
                      Chicago testified before Congress,                           Even setting aside the growing cost and
      The federal                                                               doubtful effectiveness, SNAP is an ineffi-
     government                Both the 2008 Farm Bill and the 2009             cient, fraud-ridden, and deeply troubled pro-
  currently funds              ARRA increased the amount of the                 gram.
                               SNAP benefits paid to eligible house-               For example, SNAP’s administrative costs
      21 different             holds, and thereby increased job accep-          are considerably higher than those of most
        programs               tance penalty and layoff subsidy rates           other social welfare programs. In 2013, the
                               . . . . Earning income requires sacri-           program’s total administrative expenses at
providing food or              fices, and people evaluate whether the           both the federal and state level are expected
 food-purchasing               net income earned is enough to justify           to top $7 billion, more than 9 percent of
       assistance.             the sacrifices. When the food stamp or           program costs.55 The federal share of admin-

                                                                           14
istrative expenses alone is more than $4.5              overseas relatives of recipients.59 Such abus-   The current
billion, and that is expected to increase to            es should be kept in perspective—they are        welfare system
almost $6 billion by 2023.                              tiny in comparison to the program’s overall
    SNAP also has a high rate of fraud and              costs—but they still undermine faith in the      has done a poor
abuse. Officially, the USDA puts program                government’s ability to successfully conduct     job of reducing
fraud at around $858 million last year,                 its operations.
which would amount to just a bit more than
                                                                                                         poverty.
1 percent of SNAP expenditures.56 But this
calculation only refers to direct fraud, such           SNAP in the Context of the
as trafficking in benefits. It does not include          American Welfare State
roughly $2.2 billion annually in erroneous
payments to individuals who were not prop-                  One of the biggest mistakes in evaluating
erly eligible for participation or who received         SNAP is to consider the program in isolation
benefits in excess of the amount to which               rather than as part of a much larger U.S. wel-
they should have been entitled.57 The erro-             fare state. For example, the average benefit
neous payments raise the total fraud and                amounts to just $4.50 per day, not a great
abuse rate to more than 3.9 percent, making             deal with which to feed a family. This daily
SNAP one of the most frequently abused                  dollar amount has led to much grandstand-
non–health care social welfare programs.                ing on the part of program supporters, fre-
    As bad as this fraud rate is, it does repre-        quently taking the “food stamp challenge,”
sent an improvement over the past few years.            in which they demonstrate how difficult it
The error payment rate has actually fallen              is to eat on $4.50 per day. However, as Wash-
from 5.64 percent in FY2007 to 3.80 per-                ington Post reporter and “The Fact Checker”
cent in FY2011.58 USDA officials and pro-               columnist Glenn Kessler pointed out, “the
gram advocates credit this improvement to               name of the program refers to ‘supplemen-
the transition from physical food stamps to             tal’ assistance.”60
the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards.                Fewer than 20 percent of SNAP recipients
However, part of the decline is an indirect             rely solely on the program for their income.
result of the program’s eligibility changes.            More than 30 percent of SNAP households
Because, as described above, the vast major-            have some form of earned income, that is,
ity of recipients now qualify through cat-              they are working, whereas 60 percent of
egorical eligibility, fewer beneficiaries are           SNAP households had unearned income,
subject to the program’s asset tests. Some              such as cash assistance from TANF, general
states have virtually eliminated asset tests            assistance, Supplemental Security Income or
altogether. Many payments that previously               another related program, or more than one
would have been considered improper are                 of these.
no longer flagged as such because without                   Indeed, SNAP may not even be the only
the asset test there is no way to verify that           food assistance program that they receive.
the payments are improper. Thus, at least               The federal government currently funds 21
part of the apparent decline in erroneous               different programs providing food or food-
payments is due to moving the foul lines                purchasing assistance, administered by 3
rather than to greater program efficiency.              different federal departments and 1 inde-
    And none of this fraud includes highly              pendent agency. This funding is just part of
publicized abuses in recent years, which,               a massive structure of 126 often overlapping
while not technically fraudulent, neverthe-             federal anti-poverty programs, 72 of which
less violate the spirit of the program. This            provide either cash or in-kind benefits to
abuse includes use of SNAP EBT cards at                 individuals (the remainder fund communi-
liquor stores and even strip clubs, as well as          ty-wide programs for low-income neighbor-
the shipment of SNAP-funded foodstuffs to               hoods), at a cost of more than $668 billion

                                                   15
annually.61 State, county, and municipal                 Still, given the level of welfare spending,
                      governments operate additional welfare pro-           we seem to be having little success at getting
                      grams. Of course, no individual or family             people out of poverty over the long term,
                      receives benefits from all 72 programs, but           or making them less dependent on govern-
                      many recipients do receive aid from a num-            ment. This lack of success should suggest
                      ber of them at any given time.                        that we are doing something wrong. That
                          For an individual receiving major welfare         “something” is unlikely to be remedied sim-
                      programs such as TANF; Medicaid; public               ply by spending more on food stamps.
                      housing assistance; Women, Infants, and
                      Children; LIHEAP; and free commodities,
                      in addition to SNAP, total benefits would                  Proposals for Reform
                      range from $49,175 in Hawaii to $16,984 in
                      Mississippi. Nationwide, in a medium-level               SNAP is unusual among government
                      welfare state benefits total $28,500.62 SNAP          programs in that it combines aspects of both
                      therefore becomes a component of a large              an entitlement and a discretionary program
                      and growing welfare system and needs to be            subject to appropriation. On the individual
                      evaluated in that context.                            level, SNAP functions as an entitlement: if a
      Able-bodied         The current welfare system has done a             person meets eligibility standards, he or she
       food stamp     poor job of reducing poverty. Since President         receives benefits. In addition, authorization
 recipients should    Johnson declared “war on poverty” in 1965,            for SNAP and its funding levels remain in
                      the United States has spent more than $15             place unless otherwise changed by legisla-
       be required    trillion on anti-poverty programs.63 Yet the          tion. Traditionally, Congress has also set 5-
     to work or to    poverty rate has remained relatively constant         or 10-year funding totals as part of periodic
                      since 1965, despite rising welfare spending.          farm bills.
actively seek work    In fact, the only appreciable decline occurred           Congress is now debating a farm bill
    as a condition    in the 1990s, a time of state experimentation         again this year. As a result, there is a rare
      for receiving   with tightening welfare eligibility, culminat-        opportunity to reform the program. Much
                      ing in the passage of national welfare reform         of the debate so far has revolved around
          benefits.   (the Personal Responsibility and Work Re-             funding levels. Republicans in the House of
                      sponsibility Act of 1996). Since 2006, poverty        Representatives have passed legislation that
                      rates have risen despite a massive increase in        returns SNAP funding to 2010 levels, a re-
                      spending.64                                           duction of roughly $39 billion over 10 years
                          Of course, this increase in poverty rates         from the projected baseline.67 Whereas such
                      does not mean that anti-poverty spending              cuts would be welcome in light of the overall
                      has had no impact. Certainly one could ar-            budget picture, simply changing appropria-
                      gue that without such spending poverty                tion levels do little to change the program’s
                      levels would be even higher. As noted above,          fundamental flaws.
                      the USDA suggests that without SNAP, pov-                More comprehensive reforms, some of
                      erty rates could be four to eight percentage          which are included in the House legislation,
                      points higher than they are.65 Welfare spend-         would also make the following five changes:
                      ing may also reduce the severity of that pov-            1. Change the incentive structure for states.
                      erty. According to the alternative poverty            Currently, the federal government provides
                      measure, for instance, taking into account            bonus funding to states, which makes it
                      the full range of welfare benefits received           easier for people to enroll in food stamps.
                      reduces the number of Americans living in             In 2011, states received $48 million in bo-
                      extreme poverty—that is below 50 percent              nus payments. Bonus payments encourage
                      of the poverty level—from 6.2 percent to 5.4          states to expand their programs beyond
                      percent.66 These people remain poor, but less         the truly needy. Notably, states such as Or-
                      poor than before.                                     egon, which have received bonus payments,

                                                                       16
are among those with the largest program                higher SNAP benefits through their receipt
growth in the past five years.                          of LIHEAP. One reform proposal would seek
    The problem is not the modest amount                to prevent states from providing token LI-
that such bonuses cost but the incentives               HEAP payments by requiring them to pro-
that they establish. The participation rates            vide LIHEAP benefits of at least $10 to qual-
for the most needy families are much higher             ify for the exemption. This proposal would
than those near the margin of eligibility, in           save about $4.5 billion over 10 years and
part because these neediest families likely             would affect roughly 500,000 SNAP house-
already receive cash assistance from other              holds.73 Because states do not bear any of the
government programs and are thus categor-               cost for LIHEAP, they could simply increase
ically eligible. But also these families with           LIHEAP benefits to whatever the new thresh-
little earned income qualify for higher ben-            old is as much as their block grant permits,
efits, further creating incentives for them to          thereby allowing their residents to continue
participate in the program.                             to receive higher SNAP benefits without in-
    At the same time, the federal government            curring additional state costs.
fails to adequately penalize states for errone-             A second proposal, therefore, would re-
ous payments. Now, a state is only penalized            peal the entire LIHEAP–SNAP link so that
if erroneous payments total more than 6 per-            families who receive the allowance would
cent.68 In 2012, only six states exceeded that          need to show their utility bills to receive the
ceiling.69 If all erroneous payments had had            utility portion of the deduction. CBO esti-
to be repaid, the federal government would              mates that ending automatic qualification
have saved more than $2.5 billion in 2010.70            would save roughly $1.5 billion annually.
Some states could be hit with repayments of             It would affect approximately 1.3 million
as much as $250 million.71 More important,              SNAP households and lower their benefits
requiring repayment may encourage states                by roughly $90 per month.74 Families would
to become more efficient in determining eli-            still receive SNAP benefits, but they would
gibility and avoiding mistaken payments.                be more in line with the level of benefits that
    2. End broad-based categorical eligibility.         they should be eligible for.
As discussed previously, most SNAP ben-                     4. Strengthen work requirements. Most
eficiaries qualified for the program through            Americans would agree that able-bodied
broad-based categorical eligibility and there-          food stamp recipients should be required
fore were not subject to the same income                to work or to actively seek work as a con-
and asset tests as other program partici-               dition for receiving benefits. The current
pants. Whereas the vast majority of categori-           SNAP program has work requirements that
cal eligibles would likely continue to qualify          look strong on paper but fail to achieve their
under the traditional asset and income tests,           goals in practice. The fact that states do not
at least some would not. CBO estimates that             even report their rates of work participa-
eliminating categorical eligibility and sub-            tion should be especially troubling. There-
jecting all SNAP applicants to traditional              fore any reform of the food stamp program
asset and income tests would reduce SNAP                should prioritize work as a condition for
participation by 1.8 million annually, at a             participating in SNAP.
savings of $1.2 billion per year.72 Ending                  For example, there should be clear statu-     Any work
categorical eligibility would also serve the            tory standards for the percentage of non-
valuable function of refocusing SNAP ben-               exempt adults receiving SNAP who must             requirement
efits to those individuals most truly in need,          engage in a specified number of hours of          should
allowing spending to be reduced without                 work-related activity each week. Exemptions       strengthen the
harming those who truly need assistance.                should be narrowly tailored to cover only
    3. End LIHEAP loophole. More and more               those who are aged, disabled, or parenting        definition of
beneficiaries in recent years are qualifying for        very young children. To enforce this require-     work.

                                                   17
There is little   ment, the program would have to authorize              states could spend on the program, but the
      proof that     stronger penalties, including complete dis-            states would have vastly increased authority
                     qualification from the program, for non-               over administering the program, such as set-
  the expansion      compliance with work requirements.                     ting their own eligibility criteria and benefit
   of SNAP has           An example can be found in TANF,                   levels. States would also be free to allocate
                     which requires states to meet a 50 percent             funds between traditional food benefits and
    significantly    participation standard. There is no reason             other programs such as job training or edu-
reduced hunger       that a similar requirement should not be               cation. For example, since the 1996 welfare
    or improved      established for SNAP. However, TANF also               reform, a significantly higher proportion
                     shows the problems that can develop if the             of TANF funds have been used on ancillary
       nutrition.    definition of work activities is too broad or          benefits such as transportation assistance
                     if states fail to cooperate. In fact, despite          and other benefits designed to focus on em-
                     TANF’s stated work requirements, partici-              ployment.76
                     pation varies widely by state, ranging from                Congress could also fix the amount of the
                     nearly 88 percent in Idaho to just 17 percent          block grant in either nominal or inflation-
                     in Missouri. Nationwide, barely 42 percent             adjusted dollars, thereby preventing the pro-
                     of TANF recipients are actually taking part            gram from growing in the future. States that
                     in “work activities.” Moreover, work activity          wished to expand their program by either
                     frequently does not mean work. Only about              increasing participation or benefits would
                     one in five TANF recipients works in an un-            be free to do so, but they would have to use
                     subsidized job. Others engaged in work ac-             their own funds, thereby making themselves
                     tivities are really taking part in education or        answerable to taxpayers and voters. If eco-
                     training programs or are participating in job          nomic conditions changed in the future,
                     search activities (i.e., looking for work).75          whether for better or worse, Congress would
                         Therefore, any work requirement should             be free to revisit the level of funding.
                     strengthen the definition of work to ensure                Block grants, however, are simply a partial
                     that more SNAP participants are actually               step toward state control. Notably they split
                     working. In addition, to ensure that states            responsibility for funding and administering
                     implement and enforce work requirements,               the programs, meaning that it is often dif-
                     those states that fail to meet their work re-          ficult to hold any party responsible for the
                     quirements should lose a portion of their              program’s failures. In addition, the history
                     SNAP funding. And finally, states should be            of block grants suggests that states may in-
                     given greater freedom to shift SNAP funds              terpret block grant funds as free money, en-
                     from individual benefits to the administra-            couraging waste and inefficiency rather than
                     tion of employment and training programs.              experimentation. Moreover, states become
                         5. Convert SNAP to block grant. Whereas            dependent on federal largess in the same
                     each of the previous four reforms would                way that individuals do. After all, today the
                     improve the program in some way, none of               federal government spends more than $561
                     them are sufficient; they either unnecessar-           billion on grants and other aid to the states,
                     ily limit state flexibility or would not have          fully 16 percent of federal spending.77
                     a large enough effect on program costs. Ul-                Nor should we forget that federal funds,
                     timately, as with other social welfare pro-            aside from that which is borrowed, come
                     grams, responsibility for the program—and              from taxpayers in the 50 states. Simply mov-
                     authority over it—should be turned back to             ing money to Washington and then back
                     the states.                                            to the states with various redistributional
                         One approach would be to follow the suc-           formulas does not improve the efficiency of
                     cessful model of welfare reform and convert            programs. Therefore, over the longer term,
                     SNAP into a block grant. The federal gov-              both operational control and the responsi-
                     ernment would appropriate an amount that               bility for financing SNAP (along with other

                                                                       18
social welfare programs) should be returned            ment-subsidized purchases of their states’
to the states. That would mean phasing out             products. But “bipartisan policy” and “good
federal funding in its entirety, leaving the           policy” rarely mean the same thing.
decision about what types of food and nu-                 Because Congress will be debating the re-
trition programs to pursue directly to the             authorization of the farm bill this year, there
states and their taxpayers.                            is an opportunity to reexamine SNAP and
                                                       begin to reform this expensive, bloated, and
                                                       inefficient program.
             Conclusion
   SNAP has been growing rapidly since at                                 Notes
least 2000, and today it is the second largest         1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and
means-tested social welfare program in the             Nutrition Service, “A Short History of the Food
United States. The evidence suggests that              Stamp Program,” http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/
much of this growth is the result of both fed-         rules/Legislation/about.htm.
eral and state policy decisions, rather than           2.   Ibid.
economic conditions. Both states and the
federal government have loosened eligibility           3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Monthly
standards and increased outreach efforts in            Data—National Level” Food and Nutrition Servic-
                                                       es, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.
an attempt to enroll more participants. In             htm; U.S. Department of Agriculture, “National
addition, work requirements are far weaker             Level Annual Summary” Food and Nutrition
than they appear on paper, and many states             Services, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsum
have availed themselves of waivers and other           mary.htm.
maneuvers to weaken them still further. The            4. Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Man-
result is that today roughly one of every sev-         agement Act of 2013, H.R. 2642. 113th Cong.
en Americans receives food stamps.                     (2013).
   Yet there is little proof that the expansion
                                                       5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Supple-
of SNAP has significantly reduced hunger               mental Nutrition Assistance Program: Average
or improved nutrition among low-income                 Monthly Participation (Persons),” Food and Nu-
Americans. In the absence of much stronger             trition Services, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15
research, continued expansion of the pro-              SNAPpartpp.htm
gram seems to be based more on faith than              6.   Ibid.
evidence.
   Although SNAP does not seem to im-                  7. Congressional Budget Office, “The Supple-
prove nutrition, there is evidence that SNAP,          mental Nutrition Assistance Program,” April 2012,
                                                       p. 1.
like other welfare programs, can increase de-
pendence and undermine the work ethic.                 8. Food Research and Action Center, “Supple-
Food stamps are intended to be short-term              mental Nutrition Assistance Program: Share of
assistance, and too many recipients are re-            Population Participating,” http://frac.org/pdf/
                                                       2013_08_07_snap_june2013.pdf.
maining on the program for far too long.
However, SNAP represents just one portion              9. U.S. Department of Agriculture, “Supple-
of a much larger welfare state that includes           mental Nutrition Assistance Program: Average
21 federal food and nutrition programs.                Monthly Participation (Persons),” Food and Nu-
                                                       trition Services, http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/15/
   Backers of SNAP argue that food stamps              SNAPpartpp.htm.
have had a long history of bipartisan sup-
port. Indeed they have. Liberal Democrats              10. Congressional Budget Office, “Supplemen-
have unsurprisingly backed an expansion                tal Nutrition Assistance Program: May 2013 Base-
                                                       line,” http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44211.
of the welfare state, while farm-state Re-
publicans have been happy to have govern-              11. Ibid.

                                                  19
You can also read